Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7081a5b9c7d2e8085c49cec2fa72fcbb0b25e0d7.1600778472.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <CAHC9VhSPk2RiMsnjTKw02_+_1Kagm06m+-r=ooNruT+fuuixYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200923144852.GK822320@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhRu4KEyp+e0tbSbObL1y0+90z_Znp+0z-hmnj5V68bh0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRu4KEyp+e0tbSbObL1y0+90z_Znp+0z-hmnj5V68bh0w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:26:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTBxdtC8YF_Vze54WQgfhf3kH+2RAGnsjzf2whwJw8SOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak120 V5] audit: trigger accompanying records when no
 rules present
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:47 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2020-09-23 10:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > I've gone over this revision a couple of times now and it looks okay,
> > > but past experience is whispering in my ear that perhaps this is
> > > better to wait on this for the next cycle so it gets a full set of
> > > -rcX releases.  Thoughts?
> >
> > I thought I had lots of time since we were just at the end of the
> > previous cycle when this failed the previous time...  Ran out yet
> > again...  (there were two weeks of PTO and a devel system rebuild in
> > there somewhere...)
>
> We are at -rc6 and assuming v5.9 is released after -rc7 that would
> give this roughly a week and a half in v5.9-rcX; considering the
> history of this patch (reverted, obvious problems in development) I'm
> not confident -rc6 provides enough soak time (even if we go to -rc8 I
> remain skeptical).  In addition, we've got a history of not taking new
> work that isn't a bug-fix past the -rc5/-rc6 timeframe.  This is why
> I'm debating holding this until after the merge window.
>
> > It isn't my call.
>
> I asked for your thoughts on the matter, surely you have the liberty
> to comment on your own opinion :)

I never heard back on this, but the patch is in audit/next now.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com